I'll repost here what I put in the thread for the article. Hope it sheds some light on our thinking about why we covered it and why we titled it that way.

---

I spent a lot of time covering this guy and his practice; this brings that story to an (apparent) conclusion. We try to bring closure to stories that we have covered. It also -does- impact the issue more directly, since this guy was trying to target tens of thousands of people with these lawsuits; he likely won't be doing that anymore. Finally, he's also linked directly to the firm that really started this whole round of mass lawsuits, Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver (calling themselves the US Copyright Group). Their willingness to associate with someone of Ford's record is worth noting.

Finally, as to the headline that some people have mentioned, yes, it's rather graphic. It's supposed to be graphic. Lawyers I spoke with defending against these cases have alleged multiple times that the raunchiness of the titles is being used to pressure their clients into not mounting a defense, so as to keep their names out of such cases. I think it's worth using the titles as a way of reminding ourselves of exactly what is going on in these cases, not sanitizing them behind the case titles used in court.

As to the idea that these are "tabloid" headlines, there was nothing misleading about this one; the story delivered exactly what was promised. If people are concerned about them being "graphic," see again for why I think it's worth being graphic on occasion.

I'll repost here what I put in the thread for the article. Hope it sheds some light on our thinking about why we covered it and why we titled it that way.

---

I spent a lot of time covering this guy and his practice; this brings that story to an (apparent) conclusion. We try to bring closure to stories that we have covered. It also -does- impact the issue more directly, since this guy was trying to target tens of thousands of people with these lawsuits; he likely won't be doing that anymore. Finally, he's also linked directly to the firm that really started this whole round of mass lawsuits, Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver (calling themselves the US Copyright Group). Their willingness to associate with someone of Ford's record is worth noting.

Finally, as to the headline that some people have mentioned, yes, it's rather graphic. It's supposed to be graphic. Lawyers I spoke with defending against these cases have alleged multiple times that the raunchiness of the titles is being used to pressure their clients into not mounting a defense, so as to keep their names out of such cases. I think it's worth using the titles as a way of reminding ourselves of exactly what is going on in these cases, not sanitizing them behind the case titles used in court.

As to the idea that these are "tabloid" headlines, there was nothing misleading about this one; the story delivered exactly what was promised. If people are concerned about them being "graphic," see again for why I think it's worth being graphic on occasion.

You should be aware I could be fired for that headline.

No, I'm not kidding. I was entirely unimpressed that Ars chose to run with that headline in a news story. Being provocative is one thing, but that as a chosen headline shifted Ars well into a category that means I will likely have to stop viewing it at work. By chance the connectivity I use is mostly unfiltered and not significantly monitored; had I views the Ars technica site using the other network at work I can virtually guarantee I would be unemployed today.

Due to the nature of my work I consider reviewing technical news an important part of my job and something which I can justify the small amount of time I spend on it. I cannot however be in the position of having to defend the choice of headlines when there are other sources of technical news that may adequately fill the role and will not have a risk of including such things.

If a superior questioned you about what you were reading, and you explained the circumstances of the article as Nate described, you'd be fired? At what kind of place do you work, anyway?

I remember a previous story mentioning that Ars is read in a wide variety of places, including a specific mention to the Australian Ministry of Defence. So Ars is aware of some of the sorts of larger employment groups that people read from.

Now, how about a reading of a relatively common headline along the lines of "Porn links found on Government / Military computers"

Yes, sometimes some numbnuts gets caught looking at porn at work. However that environment makes everyone have to live under higher levels of scrutiny. Larger organisations have software that matches on keywords... which automatically creates HR reports. Fortunately, the URL was altered when JimZ mentioned it, rather quickly too.

The organization I work for is a government crown corporation. We get the worst of government and business rules and regulations. Additionally, until a specific future date I can be fired for virtually any reason without recourse, after that date it gets more complicated. But I still don't think I should have to be worried about having to explain an article title to my superiors or apologize to my coworkers.

I'm interested, not haranguing you. I was a Federal manager in the US for many years and I'm familiar with this drill, inside and out. I'd genuinely like to know more about the jeopardy in which you appear to find yourself. On face value, your description just seems so out of proportion with what the law generally provides for.

A crown corporation is a government owned corporation in Canada. I was hired in September, probationary period in government jobs here is rather long; 6 months. Absolutely any issues which come up between now and then are virtually automatic termination, not even a managers decision (if it's interdepartmental, or formal complaint)

Now you may be thinking that once probationary period is up then it's no big deal, however if that or a similar news article did get raised as an issue in the future it could cost me a job promotion or result in being on other disciplinary action. Explaining the title is not necessarily adaquate to prevent either of those situations. My alternative is simply never visiting Ars technica at work.

My job is as a Web Developer, with attention to desktop as well as mobile and requires understanding of current and future trends in regards to marketing and presentation of both the regulatory and sales portion of our business. I generally feel that Ars technica is a great site to keep abreast of the important issues in regards to these trends. (my organization has particular interest in handling the conflicting requirements of presenting a social type site of interest to its members (general public) and the protection of their privacy rights.)

Ok, thanks for the background. Still, I'm somewhat perplexed that you would find little recourse or advantage in "explaining the title". The sanctions, applied apparently without a supervisory review at minimum, or a hearing beyond that, just seems odd. Perhaps under Canadian law it's different, but I'm just wondering where the due process is.

By the way, in the agency I worked for and with the job series I was involved with, the probationary period was a year. Yeah, pretty much anything could get you released if it was a real infraction or serious incompetence. But I have to say, if one of my direct reports brought a complaint to me that they saw topham reading an article on Ars Technica so entitled, once I informed informed myself as to what was the content, I'd be asking the complainant, "Is that all you got"?

That's not to minimize your own point about the issue here that you raised, but only to provide you with some feedback that I for one wouldn't be leaning on you about reading that at work. And I thought Americans were uptight about sexy stuff! Sheesh. Good luck in your probation topham, and congrats on the job.

I am rather confused. Am I to understand that "Teen Anal Nightmare" is "OK" in the story text, but not in a "headline"? I have never heard of IT/HR differentiating between a "headline" and other text when it comes to their policies on content.

I am rather confused. Am I to understand that "Teen Anal Nightmare" is "OK" in the story text, but not in a "headline"? I have never heard of IT/HR differentiating between a "headline" and other text when it comes to their policies on content.

It's not uncommon for IT to automatically screen URLs for "conduct violations" but not the full page content of visited sites.

That being said, if someone is working someplace with reactionary management that won't pay attention to context, they shouldn't be browsing Ars in the first place.

We've had another thread on this topic, and I just want to bring this info over from it: In both instances of this same "Anal Nightmare" story the URL did contain the words from the headline. We went back in afterwards and edited it (our system allows for the URL to change without breaking the story) to keep it safer.

I am rather confused. Am I to understand that "Teen Anal Nightmare" is "OK" in the story text, but not in a "headline"? I have never heard of IT/HR differentiating between a "headline" and other text when it comes to their policies on content.

Font size.

Or to put it another way, watercooler gossip along the lines of "I was on the other side of the office and saw him looking at teenage anal porn on arse testicles".

I am rather confused. Am I to understand that "Teen Anal Nightmare" is "OK" in the story text, but not in a "headline"? I have never heard of IT/HR differentiating between a "headline" and other text when it comes to their policies on content.

It's not uncommon for IT to automatically screen URLs for "conduct violations" but not the full page content of visited sites.

That being said, if someone is working someplace with reactionary management that won't pay attention to context, they shouldn't be browsing Ars in the first place.

If this is the case, might I suggest a compromise of not using "explicit" words in the URL? Without changing the headline? I'm not okay with changing a headline because it offends someone unless it was done in extremely poor taste.

In a perfect world, this wouldn't be an issue, but if a headline can get you fired, I'd be weary of reading the news at work in general.

Heresiarch wrote:

Or to put it another way, watercooler gossip along the lines of "I was on the other side of the office and saw him looking at teenage anal porn on arse testicles

might I suggest a compromise of not using "explicit" words in the URL? Without changing the headline? I'm not okay with changing a headline because it offends someone unless it was done in extremely poor taste.